From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Sep 19 10:26:43 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mail.wrs.com (unknown-1-11.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 973B037B419 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:26:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx ([147.11.46.201]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA08043; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:26:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20010919042928.F229F380A@overcee.netplex.com.au> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:26:21 -0700 (PDT) From: John Baldwin To: Peter Wemm Subject: Re: JKH Project: x86: pcb_ext Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 19-Sep-01 Peter Wemm wrote: > The more I think about it, the right place may be the kse, since that > outlives > the threads and is per-cpu unlike the process. > > Or, we just say "no pcb extensions for kse processes". Each thread would need its own TSS, and to preserve existing semantics, we would have to change the TSS of all threads for each TSS related syscall. In light of that, I vote in favor of "no TSS's for kse processes" since TSS's are used for very few things anyways. LDT's are another matter and can be moved w/o a problem. -- John Baldwin -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message